j. case-smith original hdw summit powerpoint€¦ · whathandwringintervenons demonstrateefficacy?...
TRANSCRIPT
Best Prac*ces in Handwri*ng Instruc*on
Benefits of an OT/Teacher Model for First Grade Handwri*ng Instruc*on
Jane Case-‐Smith, Ed.D. The Ohio State University
Division of Occupa>onal Therapy
Key Ques*ons
• What handwri>ng instruc>on methods are op>mal?
• What best prac>ce handwri>ng interven>ons emerge from the research evidence?
• Using the evidence, how can we develop educa>onal standards for when, what, and how handwri>ng should be taught?
Ra*onale for Handwri*ng Instruc*on Standards
1. For most children to develop automa>c, legible handwri>ng, specific instruc>on in handwri>ng is needed. 23-‐25% of students struggle in handwri>ng 1, 2, 3
2. When the mechanics of handwri>ng become automa>c, students can beMer focus on wri>ng content and
composi>on. 4,5 1 Graham et al., 2008; 2 Volman et al., 2006; 3 Weintraub et al., 2009; 4 Berninger et al., 1997; 5 Berninger et al., 2000
Ra*onale for Handwri*ng Instruc*on Standards
3. Linking handwri>ng instruc>on to authen>c wri>ng helps students become fluent and competent
writers. 6, 7
6 Graham et al., 2007; 7 Jones & Christensen, 1999
What Theory-‐based Principles Have Been Ins*tuted in Handwri*ng Curricula?
• A con>nuous, ver>cal stroke in manuscript handwri>ng is easiest to learn.
• LeMers should be taught developmentally from easiest to form (circles) to most difficult to form (diagonal lines).
• Terms to describe leMer forma>on should be simple and consistently used.
What Handwri*ng Interven*ons Demonstrate Efficacy?
1. Teacher modeling of leMer forma>on 1,2
2. Visual/verbal cueing that is faded 1,2 3. Encouraging students’ self-‐direc>on (verbal self-‐talk) 3,4
4. Providing a context for repeated prac>ce 1, 2 5. Giving students immediate, specific feedback 3
6. Encouraging student self-‐evalua>on 2,4,5
1 Berninger et al., 1997; 2 Graham et al., 2000; 3 Jongmans et al., 2003; 4 Graham et al., 2005; 5 Weintraub et al., 2009
What Handwri*ng Interven*ons Complement Instruc*on and Are Effec*ve with At-‐risk Students?
1. Strategies to promote motor planning 1
2. Ac>vi>es to improve visual motor skills 1,2,3 3. Sensory processing interven>ons 1,2,3
4. Cogni>ve strategies such as self-‐evalua>on 4,5 5. Motor learning strategies 4,5
1 Peterson & Nelson, 2004; 2 Denton et al., 2006; Jongmans et al., 2003; Weintraub et al., 2009
Phases of Handwri*ng Instruc*on
• Instructor presents and models leMers
– Visual model (near and far) – Use verbal terms that become simple mnemonics for remembering leMer forma>on.
• Students prac>ce – Repeated prac>ce of targeted leMers – Wide lined paper – Consistent cueing (visual or verbal) as needed – Some prac>ce without model (by memory)
Phases of Handwri*ng Instruc*on
• Feedback – Immediate, specific adult feedback – Encourage and reinforce self-‐evalua>on – Peer feedback
• Link to wri>ng – Con>nue peer modeling and reinforcement; self-‐regula>on strategies, self-‐evalua>on
– Remind students of leMer forma>on in wri>ng
– Reinforce organiza>on, handwri>ng, and mechanics during wri>ng workshop
– Con>nue to use mnemonics for leMer forma>on reminders for good handwri>ng
Best Prac*ces: How to Implement Strategies
• A co-‐teaching model with teacher, interven>on specialist, and occupa>onal therapist
– Students benefit from different skill sets – Instruc>on for struggling students is easily embedded in the classroom instruc>on
– Allows groups of diverse learners to be beMer served – Enables use of small group instruc>on and ac>vi>es
– Allows for individualized instruc>on and feedback
Planning Mee*ngs
• The OT and teachers met weekly to review the students’ wri>ng samples, discuss poten>al strategies, and plan instruc>on.
• The team also planned accommoda>ons and interven>ons for the students who were struggling.
Format for Handwri*ng Instruc*on • Handwri>ng Instruc>on
– Smart board with students prac>cing on small white boards
– Self-‐evalua>on and peer-‐evalua>on • Small-‐group ac>vi>es (6-‐7 students)
– Motor planning
– Visual motor integra>on – Cogni>ve strategies
• Wri>ng workshop
Example of Instruc*on
Example of Small Groups
Small-‐group Ac*vi*es
Wri*ng Samples
• Students’ weekly wri>ng samples during the program.
• Week 1 (m=82%) to Week 12 (m=94%).
70
75
80
85
90
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Weekly Averages for Legibility: Classes Combined
Both classes
Findings From Trial
• Compared effects of Write Start to Standard Handwri>ng Instruc>on
• Characteris>cs of Students by Group (n=65)
Characteristics Write Start Standard Handwriting
Number 36 29 Age Mean 77.4 mo 79.2 mo IEP 5 3
Results of Program for Students’ Handwri*ng and Wri*ng
• The Write Start program provided instruc>on in handwri>ng/wri>ng twice a week (for 45-‐50 minutes).
• The comparison classrooms taught handwri>ng every morning for ~20 minutes, and integrated handwri>ng instruc>on into wri>ng assignments.
ETCH: Legibility Wri*ng the Lower-‐case Alphabet: Percent Legibility
Time Write Start Comparison Pre test 61.5 (3.7) 57.9 (4) Post test 86.4 (2.8) 75.8 (3) Follow up 86.3 (2.4) 84.7 (2.6)
ETCH Time (Seconds) to Complete Alphabet Lower-case
Time Write Start Comparison pre 212.3 (18.6) 221.9 (19.7) post 90.3 (7.3) 122.452 (7.7) Follow up 81.8 (6.6) 104 (7.0)
ETCH Upper-‐case Alphabet Time
Time Write Start Comparison Pre 200.3 (14.3) 159.3 (15.2) Post 111.2 (7.9) 122.4 (8.4) Follow up 100.1 (6.7) 120.5 (7.2)
Fluency (Woodcock Johnson)
Time Write Start Comparison Pre 1.1 (.25) .42 (.26) Post 4.6 (.63) 2.3 (.67) Follow up 8.1 (.77) 4.5 (.81)
Comparison of Three Ability Groups
• High ability: 80% or higher at baseline • Middle ability: 50% or higher at baseline (students
struggling with handwri>ng)
• Low ability: Under 50% at baseline (onen child had IEP) • We compared the progress made by each group. The
focus for this program was the two lower groups.
Comparison of Child Progress at Different Ability Levels: ETCH Scores
Lower case alphabet legibility %
Speed in seconds for writing the lower case alphabet
Woodcock Johnson Fluency Raw Scores
Those with good handwri>ng made rapid and significant gains in fluency. The at-‐risk group made similar gains.
Woodcock Johnson Fluency Standard Scores
Teacher and OT Feedback About Program
• The teachers and students were enthusias>c about the program.
• The students liked the novelty of each session and enjoyed the addi>onal aMen>on.
• They were very engaged in the handwri>ng prac>ce and the wri>ng workshop.
• The teachers appreciated learning from OT, par>cularly in strategies to accommodate students with special needs.
• The OT appreciated learning about the curriculum and classroom management.
• The planning >me seemed to be par>cularly valuable and was essen>al to the success of the sessions.
Summary of Findings
• Given the number of students who will struggle to learn handwri>ng, well designed instruc>on is needed.
• Strategies for teaching handwri>ng have been developed, tested, and found to be effec>ve.
• Instruc>on should include supports for at-‐risk learners. • Review of students’ work and planning for individualized
supports was key to the program’s success. • Strategies linked to handwri>ng improvement (e.g.
simple script, visual cues, self-‐regula>on, self-‐evalua>on, peer-‐evalua>on) set the stage for wri>ng competence.